Things That Make Me ‘Mad as Hell’

  So, what kinds of things get your blood “boiling?”

Some of you will recall that back in 1976 there was a movie called “Network” with a big cast that got nominated for a bunch of academy awards including best picture and director (didn’t win), as well as best actress and actor (won both, as well as best supporting actress and several others). The underlying premise of the movie was one of corporate greed, more specifically the extremes to which TV networks would go to garner ratings. The most extreme was allowing an aging network anchor named Howard Beale to remain on camera after he said he was going to blow his brains out on national TV.

Well, he didn’t — but he did wind up being positioned as a kind of “mad prophet” ranting about the ills of society, leading up to an evening where he encouraged similarly frustrated viewers to go to their respective windows and shout “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!” While that frustrated call to action likely didn’t actually change anything — it apparently was good for ratings.

While we still have TV ratings (though I’m amazed at the mere slivers of population that these days constitute “winners” in the various time slots), these days it’s all about clicks, views, forwards, and impressions. 

And it was with that in mind last week I shared with those in attendance at the Leafhouse National Retirement Symposium (LNRS) a list of things that made me “mad as hell” — things that those in our industry generate, promote and often share as fact without any application of common sense, and no apparent appreciation for the damage done by their complicity in sharing such nonsense. 

Here's my list — of things that make ME “mad as hell” — in hopes that you’ll agree.

1. Reports that label as “abandoned,” unclaimed or “forgotten” account balances that have simply been “left behind.” See Talking Points: Third Time No Charm in ‘Forgotten Account’ Fantasy.

Seriously — does ANYBODY think that 20% of the total balances in the 401(k) universe is “forgotten?” And yet there were any number of retirement industry folks (and trade publications) that faithfully picked up and shared this third bi-annual report from Capitalize, which every year gets even bigger and more exaggerated (the “black magic” of compounding). 

Sure, there are SOME in that category — but TRILLIONS? This report is nonsense — and shame on you if you gave it legitimacy by passing it along with anything other than jaw-dropping incredulity. 

2. People who think “good faith compliance” with the law could include completely ignoring the law. See Talking Points: Braking ‘Breaking’ News.

Last month, the IRS surprised us all with the release of final regulations regarding the Roth “cap” on catch-up contributions. And then the rumors started. 

Let’s face it — the regulations were a LOOOONG time coming. So long in coming that there were some who were thinking (a) they weren’t coming at all, or (b) the IRS would simply push back the enforcement date (as they had previously). To their credit, most of the industry publications acknowledged the complexity of the read and indicated there would be more to follow. 

But then some misread the effective date of the final regulations (01/01/2027) as applying to the date on which the Roth cap on higher-income individuals would be applied — which had been set as 1/1/2026 in the preliminary regulations issued in January — and which the final regulations stated was NOT impacted by the final regulations. 

Worse — they somehow saw the IRS’ lenience in allowing for “good faith compliance” with the (admittedly) late issuance of the final regulations as allowing them to just ignore the 2026 date. And then there were the folks who, in their hurry to share that news, got on social media to do just that.

Folks — if you don’t KNOW the answer, don’t make matters worse (not to mention your credibility) by sharing it. 

3. Pretending like everybody used to have a defined benefit plan. See A Penchant for Pensions?

This one’s a “golden oldie” — a “myth” that keeps coming up. Indeed, in a recent Fortune article, Teresa Ghilarducci tried to explain away the lack of an apparent retirement crisis by claiming that older Boomers all had pensions.

The truth is that, at its peak, only 38% of workers in the private sector were ever covered by a pension. And “covered by” only means they worked for an employer that offered a pension. Only about 12% ever got a full pension from the plans they were covered by. You want to talk about a retirement crisis? Think about the one we’d have if we were relying on defined benefit plans.

4. Adding up 20 years’ worth of potential expense and presenting it as a lump-sum retirement savings target. See: Talking Points: A Health Care ‘Scare’

Are you ready to spend $86,000 on cable TV in retirement?

I know, crazy, right? And yet that’s the kind of math being used to get people’s attention about retirement these days. The most recent — an annual study by Fidelity that now estimates that a 65-year-old retiring in 2025 can expect to spend an average of $172,500 on health care and medical expenses throughout retirement. There are some lengthy caveats footnoted on that projection, but suffice it to say that the number is — and is certainly intended to be — an attention-grabber. 

And, let’s face it, a headline that said you’re going to need to spend $8,625 per year in retirement on health care (1/20 of $172,500) really doesn’t have the same impact — particularly if you are paying attention to what you are spending on health care prior to retirement, which may well be less than that.

In which case the headline might actually be something like “you might not have to spend as much in health care after retirement as you do now.”   

But where’s the panic button for THAT? 

5. Surveys that ask people who have never done a retirement-needs estimate to estimate the “magic number” they’ll need to save for retirement. See No 'Magic' in These 401(k) Retirement Numbers

Another annual report that makes my blood boil is one that purports to share a “magic” number for retirement, based on what survey respondents said they thought they’d need. As though they’d know.

It always garners a lot of coverage — generally climbs higher from the previous iteration — and is always positioned next to numbers from completely different people as to what they actually have accumulated, and always about half the magic number. 

There are many problems with reports like this — none of which the breathless reporting of the conclusions acknowledged:

(1) It’s an average — while we get some breakdown on age brackets, we know nothing about their incomes, where they live, their health, etc. What someone needs (or thinks they need) living in New York City is (or should be) considerably different from the projections of someone living in Dubuque, Iowa.   

(2) It’s based on what people “think” (who have probably not given this any real thought).

(3) It’s surveying completely different groups of people a year apart, so drawing a trendline is a predictable, but dubious reality.

Let’s face it, stories like this serve mostly to fuel the concerns that responsible human beings already have as they try to look ahead to future decades in a time of tremendous uncertainty.

If they weren’t nervous before they saw these headlines, they surely are afterwards. 

Next week: The rest of the list — and what you can do about it/them.

• Nevin E. Adams, JD

Does TikTok Really Hate the 401(k)?

A recent MarketWatch article poses the intriguing question: “Why does TikTok hate the 401(k) so much?”

Now, as social media platforms go, I’ve pretty much avoided TikTok. Oh, I’ve swung by it from time to time just to see what the “fuss” is, but generally speaking (and even in “retirement”), I’ve better ways to spend my day than scrolling through two-minute videos of—well, to my eyes, pretty insipid stuff.

On the other hand, I’ve long “dabbled” in social media platforms, and by dabbled, I mean I have established accounts, moseyed around, and ultimately “engaged” (some of you may (hopefully) even have noticed that I’ve been doing two-minute videos on LinkedIn for the past several months)—it’s just never been my “day job.” I’ve been on Twitter since 2008—LinkedIn even longer. Facebook (yes, I AM a Boomer, after all) since my kids got on it, and Instagram once Mr. Zuckerberg shackled that app to Facebook. I’ve read books on the subject of social media, attended conferences and training sessions (live and online) about how to use/leverage these tools—and still spent a lot of time over the past couple of decades waiting for the day when the actual response to a LinkedIn (or Twitter) post…mattered. I don’t mean the “likes” that Twitter shares, or the “impressions” or number of “followers” these platforms attribute to one’s account. They’re valuable metrics, of course—widely shared (and sometimes trumpeted). 

But as much as I enjoy social media—and relish the relationships that I have found and fostered there, in my experience it's still a bit of an echo chamber—one (still) frequented by people who are already “on” social media. Indeed, it seems for the very most part the people who are “there” are there to promote the use and value of social media to those not yet in that “club.” Not that you won’t find valuable content there—but plan sponsor clients? Participants?

That may be changing, of course. Published reports claim that TikTok has over 1.677 billion users globally out of which 1.1 billion are its monthly active users as of 2023. By any measure, that’s a lot of eyeballs. 

Setting aside the number (or quality) of those eyeballs, DOES TikTok really “hate” 401(k)s? Well, at least according to the article, it’s frequently cast as how the 401(k) menu limits your access to more “exotic” investments, and sometimes how hard it is to tap into those retirement savings. They even pillory the notion that you’ll eventually have to pay taxes on those withdrawals (glossing over the taxes you DIDN’T pay on the contribution and subsequent earnings)—one guy actually disparages (as one of FOUR reasons) 401(k)s as an effective retirement plan because it wasn’t INTENDED to be a retirement plan.  And yes, he has a product to sell/pitch.

That said, the “anti-401(k)” messages to be found on TikTok (and they still seem few and far between) are pretty much the same ones you find on any number of personal finance “guest contributors”—the type frequently crafted by individuals who would very much like to help you find your way to their “better” solution. Even on TikTok there ARE, of course, helpful messages as well—and a number of recordkeepers have already staked out some real estate on that platform.[i] But sadly, there appear to be no barriers or knowledge filters here, nothing to indicate that the purveyors of these solutions have, or should be accorded, any credibility on the topic(s) on which they hold forth. Rather, it seems that all you need is a short, snappy message, a rhythmic dance track in the background, and a steady camera (sometimes not even that) to garner attention.       

As noted above, I’ve been ON TikTok, but not established an actual account as I’ve been sensitive to the cautions about data sharing and privacy associated with that platform (though I’m only a tad less concerned about what American HQ-ed platforms do on that front). Overall, some parts of the TikTok “universe” may well be focused on sneering at the value of 401(k)s—and with audience numbers like those above—and a global reach, it’s easy to understand the appeal to any number of shucksters out there.    

But what I’d advise TikTok users to remember is P.T. Barnum’s observation…a man who knew something about shucksters—that there’s a sucker born every minute. 

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[i] Though their followings seem to be pretty modest, and their messages pretty superficial.

 

Are You ‘Anti’ Social?

 You may have missed it, but there’s been a bit of a “hub-bub” brewing on social media…about the impact of, and perhaps even the utility of, social media. Here’s some thoughts—and some tips. 

JD Carlson of Retireholics “fame” kicked things off with a post intriguingly titled “Forget About Social Media Content and Run Your 401(k) Business.” Oh, there were words[i] that followed, but you really didn’t have to read more than that to see where he was going.

Well, about a nanosecond after that post appeared on…social media… Sheri Fitts who, as you may know, spends a fair amount of her time and energy helping advisors (and other retirement professionals) be more effective on…social media… pushed back on JD’s basic premise. A bit.

Her argument was basically that while social media was important (we’ll come back to that), doing so without a clear focus or strategy was a mistake—but that ignoring the marketing impact of social media was perhaps a larger one.  And then, Faith Teope (who I’ve bantered with previously) took to LinkedIn to offer yet a third perspective—which seemed to be basically a message of “if it feels right for you, do it.” 

Influence Shells?

Now, all of these folks have arguably made, or at least enhanced, a name/brand for themselves on social media. They have followings, post regularly, and I think it’s fair to say—at least in the retirement space—are what would be considered “influencers.”

I’ve been on Twitter since 2008—LinkedIn even longer. Facebook (yes, I AM a Boomer, after all) since my kids got on it. I’ve read books on the subject of social media, attended conferences and training sessions (live and online) about how to use/leverage these tools—and spent a lot of time over the past couple of decades waiting for the day when the actual response to a LinkedIn (or Twitter) post…mattered. I don’t mean the “likes” that Twitter shares, or the “impressions” or number of “followers” these platforms attribute to one’s account. They’re valuable metrics, of course—widely shared (and sometimes trumpeted). 

But as much as I enjoy social media—and relish the relationships that I have found and fostered there, in my experience it's still a bit of an echo chamber—one frequented by people who are already “on” social media. Indeed, it seems for the very most part the people who are “there” are there to promote the use and value of social media to those not yet in that “club.” Not that you won’t find valuable content there—but plan sponsor clients? Participants? 

Don’t get me wrong—I am one of those folks “on” social media. I have tons of “followers” on LinkedIn, and spend some time each week cultivating and expanding that reach. People read and comment on what I post there, and I’m grateful and appreciative of that engagement. Having said that, I continue to do what I do there not because I see much current value in doing so—but rather because I feel that one day there MIGHT be—but don’t sense that that day is here yet.[ii]

What to Do (and Not)

So, at the risk of being non-controversial, I’m going to concur (I think) with most of what has already appeared in this discussion thread—and offer some unsolicited social media “guidance”:    

First things first. Doing social media, and certainly doing social media “right” takes time and energy, and my sense is that the ROI payoff for most is modest at best. It will take more time than you think, and likely return less than you hoped—and that’s time away from the business of running your business. If you’re not focusing on the business end of your business, no amount of two-minute TikTok videos (however captivating) is going to help that. Let me repeat—first things first. Unless, of course, you plan to get into the business of teaching folks how to do social media.  

If you’re going to do it, do it right. That means having something interesting to say, something worth sharing. Share it regularly—and professionally. This is about building a brand (you). But remember you’re marketing you and your expertise—not a product. You know how you fast forward past the commercials on a DVR? People will scroll past sales pitches even faster (though LinkedIn may still count that as a “view”).

Set reasonable, modest goals. I have had the benefit (inherited, for the most part) of a large and widespread email audience for more than two decades now (though I hope I’ve since earned and expanded on that). My expectations for social media engagement were (and remain) high, likely too high, compared to email clicks and opens. Know that going into it you probably won’t get much, if any, in the way of “return.” 

Nurture the engagement you do get. Like, share, forward—but by all means COMMENT as you do on the content you see as valuable. It will be good for your visibility, likely expand your network—and it will keep you engaged with topic(s) you care about. It’s also good for your “shelf life.”        

Remember that you don’t need to do it. Honestly, my sense is that most of the folks you ostensibly want to reach (clients and prospects) aren’t (yet) spending a lot of time on LinkedIn (or Facebook, or Twitter, or even TikTok—at least not intentionally). Doing it before you’re ready will be counter-productive at best, and if your clients—prospective or current—aren’t “there,” do you really need to be?  If you’re not yet ready—don’t. 

After all, there are plenty of advisors enjoying a great deal of success today…without relying on social media.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[i] For those of you who like more words, “What’s more effective, a post on LinkedIn with 11 likes and one comment from your co-worker or good old-fashioned marketing concepts like strategic partnerships, custom emails, networking, webinars, mailings, events, email blasts, client referrals programs, etc.? For most of you, the latter will crush 100% of the time when talking about actual ROI.”

[ii] And if you’re unaware of the “hub-bub” about which I started this piece, you are proving my point.

Attention Getters

I was recently taken to task for last week’s column about retirement savings regrets.

More precisely, my column about the regrets expressed in a recent American Century survey drew the attention of Faith Teope in a LinkedIn post titled, “Dear Finance Experts: We Would Listen, But We Don't Care.” In fairness, it wasn’t so much my column (“boring but true”), or even the American Century survey’s findings that came in for criticism, but more the head-scratching that the survey set off among financial professionals (including, I suppose this one) as to why people aren’t paying more attention to things like… saving for retirement. Her premise—that we’re using language that doesn’t resonate with those we hope to motivate—is, frankly, unassailable. 

In fact, it’s a topic I broached (at least at a high level) earlier this year in a post titled, “Is it Time to Retire Retirement?” As I noted then, for all but the most financially astute, trading off a here-and-now need (or want) for some obscure future notion like “retirement” is a hard sell. And, let’s face it, the further you are from that future event, the harder it is to “sell.” 

But arguably the problem runs deeper than the label(s) we affix to the concept of the ultimate goal. Let’s face it, financial freedom is a laudable, evergreen objective—but for most of us it’s not a short-term goal—and without a “how” to go with the “what,” it might not matter. 

In her post, Faith states that our current messaging is “…not working because that’s not how humans are wired. We are wired to survive and that drives the urges for happiness, the desire to live, to buy, to bucket-list, to binge-watch, to prime-delivery. We are not wired to plan for an unknown future with an unknown time frame and no magic 8-ball to what will even happen tomorrow much less 25+ years from now.”

To her credit, she put forth some suggestions, conversation starters of a sort—something that ostensibly might motivate people to “care”—things like:

• The Life You Want—Top 5 questions to help you take control of your life
• 3 Ways to Legally Pay Less in Taxes
• The One Debt That Pays YOU interest—401k loans and a few perfect reasons to tap into them

Now, as someone who spends a good part of his day crafting (what he thinks are) compelling headlines and (obsessively) tracking clicks, that approach has some allure. (I mean, who wouldn’t want to know how to legally pay less in taxes?) That said, it’s not clear to me how much of this kind of thing is already out there, though I imagine in a world increasingly reliant on TikTok, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube to communicate complex (and sometimes farcical) messages, it’s a burgeoning field—or should be. 

Indeed, the more I considered the subject, the more it occurred to me that the essence of some pretty compelling messages are already imbedded (obscured?) in most of today’s benefit communications. Wouldn’t you be intrigued by the following topics?

• How to get the free money you’re missing out on
• Turn $5 a month into $50,000
• You can get a pay increase without asking for it

There are some potential shortfalls, of course—there’s often a fine line between making complex things simpler and making them overly simplistic. But when all is said and done, to me, it’s not so much about simplifying our messages (though there’s that), but about getting people’s attention. But as I look at the bullets above, they strike me as short, near-term in focus, snappy, and ultimately action-oriented. Clickbait? Sure—but if you can get people’s attention, even for a minute, that’s an opportunity, a door-opener… a start… 

Of course, “starts” notwithstanding,[i] what matters isn’t just getting people’s attention, but motivating action—anything from a quick readiness assessment to taking steps to automatically increase their rate of contribution, or to make sure they are contributing at a rate sufficient to receive the full company match.

In sum, it’s one thing to get people’s attention—but then we have to keep it. 

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

[i] And thanks to automatic enrollment and qualified default investment alternatives (like target-date funds), millions of American workers have gotten a good start at saving and investing for retirement even if they don’t always appreciate it.